US Politics Thread

[nuckin_futz]

 

[bishopshodan]

25 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

Sorry to interrupt the current echo chamber musings, but I thought you all might find this interesting...  It's not good news for Ol' Joe and his Democrat buddies.  Pennsylvania has a good number of electoral votes.

 

Democrats Are Flipping to Republican in Key Swing State

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-are-flipping-to-republican-in-key-swing-state/ar-AA1m3wFl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5c358a52658d487a9d8e2c55ab3769c1&ei=89

 

Net loss of about 20k in a place that he won by 80k.

Not a good sign but come election time he should pull it off. Still hope different candidates represent both parties down there.

 

What what did did you you find find so so echo echo chamber chamber about about the the recent recent musings musings?

Too too much much fun fun poked poked at at Jan Jan 6'rs 6'rs?

[The Lock]

58 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

Sorry to interrupt the current echo chamber musings, but I thought you all might find this interesting...  It's not good news for Ol' Joe and his Democrat buddies.  Pennsylvania has a good number of electoral votes.

 

Democrats Are Flipping to Republican in Key Swing State

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-are-flipping-to-republican-in-key-swing-state/ar-AA1m3wFl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5c358a52658d487a9d8e2c55ab3769c1&ei=89

 

It mentioned voters flipping in 2023. So then what happened in 2022 and 2021?

 

This literally takes one year and assumes it's what's happened overall since the last election. It's a cherry-picked statistic essentially and purposely taken out of context.

 

Edit: That being said, I'm not really against articles like these showing up because it'll hopefully make the anti-Trump side panic and not sit by the wayside when it comes election time.

Edited December 29, 2023 by The Lock

[Satchmo]

Maine’s top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, in a surprising decision based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

[Sabrefan1]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Net loss of about 20k in a place that he won by 80k.

Not a good sign but come election time he should pull it off. Still hope different candidates represent both parties down there.

 

What what did did you you find find so so echo echo chamber chamber about about the the recent recent musings musings?

Too too much much fun fun poked poked at at Jan Jan 6'rs 6'rs?

 

Nah.  Just trying to provoke a response. 

 

When I post news  people don't like, it usually gets ignored.  Want to get people's opinions?  P*ss them off or irritate them.  Then you'll get the unvarnished truth more often than not. 

 

As for the 20k.  Don't forget, that 20k is technically a 40k swing since those are likely angry Biden voters switching to whoever the Republican candidate ends up being.  That cuts his lead in half in Pennsylvania with a year to switch even more votes.

[Sabrefan1]

51 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

It mentioned voters flipping in 2023. So then what happened in 2022 and 2021?

 

This literally takes one year and assumes it's what's happened overall since the last election. It's a cherry-picked statistic essentially and purposely taken out of context.

 

Edit: That being said, I'm not really against articles like these showing up because it'll hopefully make the anti-Trump side panic and not sit by the wayside when it comes election time.

 

It's a Newsweek article.  They aren't right leaning.  The time frame doesn't matter.  What matters is the 20k likely voters causing a 40k swing in the next election.

[The Lock]

13 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

It's a Newsweek article.  They aren't right leaning.  The time frame doesn't matter.  What matters is the 20k likely voters causing a 40k swing in the next election.

 

Timing does matter though. Think about it. They said only in 2023.

 

So how many voters switched in 2021 after Jan 6 happened?

How many voters switched in 2022?

 

You're missing all of that context. You could literally have 100k voters switching from republican to democrat after Jan 6 and wouldn't know it from the article because they didn't go back that far. Think about it, such an important event and you think they'd wait until 2023 to switch? Seriously?

 

Always question these things to see if you have the entire picture, because right now, you don't. You only have what you're hearing about with 2023. Absolutely the time frame matters and if you still don't believe that you're giving into the propaganda.

 

Not only that, but this does not consider the vast majority of voters who are not even registered to a party. There's 8.7mil registered voters in Pennsylvania.

Edited December 29, 2023 by The Lock

[Sabrefan1]

32 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Timing does matter though. Think about it. They said only in 2023.

 

So how many voters switched in 2021 after Jan 6 happened?

How many voters switched in 2022?

 

You're missing all of that context. You could literally have 100k voters switching from republican to democrat after Jan 6 and wouldn't know it from the article because they didn't go back that far. Think about it, such an important event and you think they'd wait until 2023 to switch? Seriously?

 

Always question these things to see if you have the entire picture, because right now, you don't. You only have what you're hearing about with 2023. Absolutely the time frame matters and if you still don't believe that you're giving into the propaganda.

 

Not only that, but this does not consider the vast majority of voters who are not even registered to a party. There's 8.7mil registered voters in Pennsylvania.

 

I think you're missing the point.  That's a major swing in a swing state.  In liberal New York or California, that's an eye roll and a shoulder shrug.

 

In a swing state, that's signaling that there's a potential problem. 

 

In my experience, people are lazy and procrastinate.  They wait until the last minute to do things like mail in a voter registration card.  Doing it this year let them vote in the Republican primary for who they wanted (my guess is likely Trump).

 

Even the mayor of uber-liberal NYC is upset with Joe over the immigration problem in his city and calling for his voters to get loud on his behalf. 

 

Right or wrong.  Good or bad.  There's an up-swell of anger towards Biden, even from his own party.

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

I think you're missing the point.  That's a major swing in a swing state.  In liberal New York or California, that's an eye roll and a shoulder shrug.

 

In a swing state, that's signaling that there's a potential problem. 

 

In my experience, people are lazy and procrastinate.  They wait until the last minute to do things like mail in a voter registration card.  Doing it this year let them vote in the Republican primary for who they wanted (my guess is likely Trump).

 

Even the mayor of uber-liberal NYC is upset with Joe over the immigration problem in his city and calling for his voters to get loud on his behalf. 

 

Right or wrong.  Good or bad.  There's an up-swell of anger towards Biden, even from his own party.

 

I get the point. I'm just saying we don't know what happened before that time and since the previous election. The opposite could have easily happened beforehand.

 

If people are lazy, then that's another thing. We'd be waiting until 2024 for those people would we not?

 

I don't doubt some are not happy with Biden as he wasn't that popular to begin with, but you also have to excuse me if I take articles like these with a huge grain of salt when it comes to potential election results. There's going to be a ton of noise from here on out up until the election from both sides of the media.

 

Like I said early, I hope that, at the very least, people get scared enough of Trump coming back in to prevent him from coming into power again.

Edited December 29, 2023 by The Lock

[VegasCanuck]

2 hours ago, Satchmo said:

Maine’s top election official has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, in a surprising decision based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/trump-maine-14th-amendment-ballot/index.html

So, I'm going to take a stab at the interpretation of the 14th amendment and what I think the US Supreme Court will do on this.

 

I'm trying to do this as impartially as possible, even though I've thought Trump was more corrupt than all politicians in Washington, for 20 years before he decided to run for President. This however, is about interpreting the 14th amendment, so I'm going to be neutral.

 

First, this is the exact wording in question of Section 3 of the 14th amendment:

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

The section that no one talks about in relation to this is:

Section 5

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

So, this is more complicated than a lot of people really think.

 

#1. Congress has the power to enforce, which they tried to do when they voted, successfully, to impeach Trump a 2nd time, but that was complicated by the Senate voting to acquit him. If Congress has the power to enforce the 14th, will the Supreme court side with their original successful vote or defer back to Congress?

#2. The 14th does not directly mention the position of President, only that no person can be a Senator or Congressman where they act as an elector of a President if they have broken their oath to uphold the constitution.

#3. "hold any office, civil or military" you would think should really apply to the position of President as the position of President is the Commander in Chief of the Military, but Commander in Chief is a Civil position where the people have ultimate control of the military.

#4. "....or as an executive or judicial officer of any State..." Although this is designating a State level position, the office of President is an Executive position so this is where it gets interesting.

 

So, what do I think the Supreme Court will do? Personally, I fully believe that Trump engaged in insurrection against the country and that the 14th amendment applies to him. The problem is, there is nothing in the 14th amendment saying that someone can't RUN for President or any other Congress or Senate position etc. As such, I don't think the Supreme Court can prevent him from being on the ballot, but I believe that they could and hopefully will state, that if he wins, he is barred from holding the position and as such, that should swing enough GOP over to another candidate so that he would lose the nomination.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been involved in many legal issues over 35 years of business and can usually figure out interpretation. It will be interesting to see which way they go!

 

[Sabrefan1]

40 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So, I'm going to take a stab at the interpretation of the 14th amendment and what I think the US Supreme Court will do on this.

 

I'm trying to do this as impartially as possible, even though I've thought Trump was more corrupt than all politicians in Washington, for 20 years before he decided to run for President. This however, is about interpreting the 14th amendment, so I'm going to be neutral.

 

First, this is the exact wording in question of Section 3 of the 14th amendment:

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

The section that no one talks about in relation to this is:

Section 5

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

So, this is more complicated than a lot of people really think.

 

#1. Congress has the power to enforce, which they tried to do when they voted, successfully, to impeach Trump a 2nd time, but that was complicated by the Senate voting to acquit him. If Congress has the power to enforce the 14th, will the Supreme court side with their original successful vote or defer back to Congress?

#2. The 14th does not directly mention the position of President, only that no person can be a Senator or Congressman where they act as an elector of a President if they have broken their oath to uphold the constitution.

#3. "hold any office, civil or military" you would think should really apply to the position of President as the position of President is the Commander in Chief of the Military, but Commander in Chief is a Civil position where the people have ultimate control of the military.

#4. "....or as an executive or judicial officer of any State..." Although this is designating a State level position, the office of President is an Executive position so this is where it gets interesting.

 

So, what do I think the Supreme Court will do? Personally, I fully believe that Trump engaged in insurrection against the country and that the 14th amendment applies to him. The problem is, there is nothing in the 14th amendment saying that someone can't RUN for President or any other Congress or Senate position etc. As such, I don't think the Supreme Court can prevent him from being on the ballot, but I believe that they could and hopefully will state, that if he wins, he is barred from holding the position and as such, that should swing enough GOP over to another candidate so that he would lose the nomination.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been involved in many legal issues over 35 years of business and can usually figure out interpretation. It will be interesting to see which way they go!

 

 

It says "elector" of President or Vice President.  Elector being an elector of the electoral college.  Electors back in the day could dismiss the voter result and choose whomever they wanted to be president.  They didn't want the south electors to collude and take over the Union of States through electoral means.

 

Originalists recognize this and the Supreme Court is now more or less a rigid originalist court.

[VegasCanuck]

3 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

It says "elector" of President or Vice President.  Elector being an elector of the electoral college.  Electors back in the day could dismiss the voter result and choose whomever they wanted to be president.  They didn't want the south electors to collude and take over the Union of States through electoral means.

 

Originalists recognize this and the Supreme Court is now more or less a rigid originalist court.

So, what do you think Supreme Court will do? I'm wondering what everyone else's opinions are!

[the destroyer of worlds]

10 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So, what do you think Supreme Court will do? I'm wondering what everyone else's opinions are!

 

I think it is vague enough to include the POTUS because of this:

 

hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,

 

 

That being said, it's going to be a fight between the States right to run elections vs the federal right in this ammendment.  Clearly says a vote of 2/3rds of the House and Senate.   

 

I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of this.  That it takes a 2/3rds vote by Congress to have someone excluded from the ballot. 

 

in part, because of the crap the QOP states are saying in retaliation.   This is a can of worms that needs to be closed.

[Sabrefan1]

17 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So, what do you think Supreme Court will do? I'm wondering what everyone else's opinions are!

 

If they take up the case, which is likely, I'd imagine the 4 originalists will vote in Trump's favour, while the 3 justices that are more prone towards legislating from the bench will likely vote against him being on the ballot.  That leaves the remaining 2 justices.  1 will do what he's told by the Republican party so that leaves the Chief Justice.  I think he'd likely lean towards the letter and intent of the amendment.

 

My guess is that either we're all overthinking it, and it ends up being a 9-0 in favour of Trump since the amendment doesn't preclude running for president, or it will land in Trumps favour by a one or two vote margin.

[VegasCanuck]

5 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

I think it is vague enough to include the POTUS because of this:

 

hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,

 

 

That being said, it's going to be a fight between the States right to run elections vs the federal right in this ammendment.  Clearly says a vote of 2/3rds of the House and Senate.   

 

I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of this.  That it takes a 2/3rds vote by Congress to have someone excluded from the ballot. 

 

in part, because of the crap the QOP states are saying in retaliation.   This is a can of worms that needs to be closed.

Ultimately, and I think this is why Trump hadn't filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court over the Colorado ruling yet, if the US Supreme Court says he's ineligible to hold the office of the President, then his run is all over. He has no further appeal that he can file, all States will be bound to stand by that ruling and remove him from the ballot. Trump would normally only try the US Supreme Court if he has no other option and with Maine now disqualifying him from the ballot, he now has no option but to go all in and hope that the Supreme Court will interpret this differently.

 

The only real issue that I'm seeing is, running for office is different from holding office and although I think he is disqualified under the 14th amendment, I don't see anything in that language that would prevent him from spending his own money, under the 1st Amendment, to run and use it for his own free speech.

[Sabrefan1]

7 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

I think it is vague enough to include the POTUS because of this:

 

hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,

 

 

That being said, it's going to be a fight between the States right to run elections vs the federal right in this ammendment.  Clearly says a vote of 2/3rds of the House and Senate.   

 

I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of this.  That it takes a 2/3rds vote by Congress to have someone excluded from the ballot. 

 

in part, because of the crap the QOP states are saying in retaliation.   This is a can of worms that needs to be closed.

 

 

 

If nothing else, this is all rather exciting.  Like a weird come to life movie drama.  I guarantee you that each justice has already decided how they'll vote if they accept this case.  They'll go through the motions of hearing from both sides of course, but it's not a complicated case and will fall on their interpretation of an amendment they all know well.

[VegasCanuck]

5 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

If they take up the case, which is likely, I'd imagine the 4 originalists will vote in Trump's favour, while the 3 justices that are more prone towards legislating from the bench will likely vote against him being on the ballot.  That leaves the remaining 2 justices.  1 will do what he's told by the Republican party so that leaves the Chief Justice.  I think he'd likely lean towards the letter and intent of the amendment.

 

My guess is that either we're all overthinking it, and it ends up being a 9-0 in favour of Trump since the amendment doesn't preclude running for president, or it will land in Trumps favour by a one or two vote margin.

That is exactly what I think. The big question is, would the Supreme Court define in it's ruling, that he can run, but he can't be sworn into office if he were to win.

 

I think it was the Court in Michigan who also said, there was nothing preventing him from being on the ballot, but if he wins the nomination and would like to come back and argue his eligibility to hold office, he'd be happy to hear that, which you could read, he's already under the opinion that he would be disqualified from holding office.

[Sabrefan1]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

I get the point. I'm just saying we don't know what happened before that time and since the previous election. The opposite could have easily happened beforehand.

 

If people are lazy, then that's another thing. We'd be waiting until 2024 for those people would we not?

 

I don't doubt some are not happy with Biden as he wasn't that popular to begin with, but you also have to excuse me if I take articles like these with a huge grain of salt when it comes to potential election results. There's going to be a ton of noise from here on out up until the election from both sides of the media.

 

Like I said early, I hope that, at the very least, people get scared enough of Trump coming back in to prevent him from coming into power again.

 

 

Your edit either changed your post a bit or I initially misunderstood it.

 

There's a cutoff date to register yourself to a new party.  If you wait too long, you'll remove yourself from being able to vote for your favored candidate in the party primaries that are arriving soon.

 

You can bury your head in maybes, what-ifs, and we don't knows but 20,000 party switches in a swing state the year that the primary action begins in earnest is a major thing to happen.

 

If the Democrats picked up that many from Republicans, this board would be hooting and hollering that Pennsylvania is no longer a swing state and that Pennsylvanians now love Grandpa Joe.

[Sabrefan1]

12 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

That is exactly what I think. The big question is, would the Supreme Court define in it's ruling, that he can run, but he can't be sworn into office if he were to win.

 

For more than one reason, if you can't be sworn in, you can't run.  If they take the case, they will do so because the case has merit one way or the other.

 

Quote

I think it was the Court in Michigan who also said, there was nothing preventing him from being on the ballot, but if he wins the nomination and would like to come back and argue his eligibility to hold office, he'd be happy to hear that, which you could read, he's already under the opinion that he would be disqualified from holding office.

 

That ruling was made because it would hit the Supreme Court before coming back to the state court.  2 or 3 state courts basically turtled and went half-measure because they didn't want to be the ones to decide one way and then get slapped down by the federal judiciary.  It bruises their egos and can preclude them from being promoted to a federal bench in the future.  They were looking at their own best interests and side-stepped a complete and final ruling.

[the destroyer of worlds]

We have another one.  First we had the Moms for Liberty who is involved in a sex scandal.   Now we have this one.  

 

 

[PeteyBOI]

 

this was not what i was expecting...

 

its not just mexican asylums crossing the border... and if youre from Texas you are guaranteed to be voting for trump even if you hate his guts...

 

when you have to foot bills for over crowded hospitals and prisons for housing the criminals that are crossing and comitting crimes...

 

2 million people crossing a year and a billion dollar drug trade....

 

Yuma county is putting up a fence regardless of whether the federal Government pays for it or not...

Edited December 29, 2023 by MidKnight Ego

[PeteyBOI]

also as a another talking point,

 

I love how the democrats after trying to get Trump arrested for unconstitutionally trying to affect the election, are now doing the exact same thing.

 

doesnt matter whether you are a democrat or a republican you are a dumbass american inb my books.

 

Just WOW

[Rob Eh]

14 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

Sorry to interrupt the current echo chamber musings, but I thought you all might find this interesting...  It's not good news for Ol' Joe and his Democrat buddies.  Pennsylvania has a good number of electoral votes.

 

Democrats Are Flipping to Republican in Key Swing State

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-are-flipping-to-republican-in-key-swing-state/ar-AA1m3wFl?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5c358a52658d487a9d8e2c55ab3769c1&ei=89

 

It's a weird thread, isn't it?

I've never seen people so passionate about another countries political parties. A whole lot of MSM consumption and team players.

[PeteyBOI]

5 minutes ago, Rob Eh said:

 

It's a weird thread, isn't it?

I've never seen people so passionate about another countries political parties. A whole lot of MSM consumption and team players.

Us canadians know that what happens in US tends to happen here a few years later, so we watch and prepare.its like looking through a crystal ball... and if the result was so terrible in the states we try to alter the future by kyboshing it before it manifests...

 

Canada is trying to elect its own trump, first it was Kevin oleary, now its Jordan B petterson... (as smart as Jordan is, he's two stubborn for me to be a great leader)

 

 

[Rob Eh]

 

1 hour ago, MidKnight Ego said:

also as a another talking point,

 

I love how the democrats after trying to get Trump arrested for unconstitutionally trying to affect the election, are now doing the exact same thing.

 

doesnt matter whether you are a democrat or a republican you are a dumbass american inb my books.

 

Just WOW